Skip to content

Conversation

ivucica
Copy link
Member

@ivucica ivucica commented Jun 10, 2025

This is currently unused in gnustep-tests, and it is not installed. The intention is to have a representation of tests run under gnustep-tests in the JUnit test report XML format. This is a format ingested and understood by many utilities, so having a way to trigger gnustep-tests to produce it would be beneficial.

Ideally, the framework itself would produce much more structured output, that is easier to parse; or it would support creating the .xml natively. The next best thing would be to process tests.log; however, the simplest approach was to process tests.sum. This can then trivially be plugged into gnustep-tests, controlled by an environment variable.

The prototype is done in Python 3, specifically under Python 3.11. Switching to Objective-C does not necessarily introduce a dependency loop, as it is perfectly valid to run tests only after GNUstep Base has already been installed.

Issue: #53
Bug: 53

This is currently unused in gnustep-tests, and it is not installed. The
intention is to have a representation of tests run under gnustep-tests
in the JUnit test report XML format. This is a format ingested and
understood by many utilities, so having a way to trigger gnustep-tests
to produce it would be beneficial.

Ideally, the framework itself would produce much more structured output, that
is easier to parse; or it would support creating the .xml natively. The next
best thing would be to process tests.log; however, the simplest approach was
to process tests.sum. This can then trivially be plugged into gnustep-tests,
controlled by an environment variable.

The prototype is done in Python 3, specifically under Python 3.11. Switching
to Objective-C does not necessarily introduce a dependency loop, as it is
perfectly valid to run tests only after GNUstep Base has already been
installed.

Issue: gnustep#53
Bug: 53
@rfm
Copy link
Contributor

rfm commented Jul 23, 2025

I detest the bloated nature of junit, but I do recognise that it's widely used/supported, and that feeding test results into external tools could be useful, so I don't see any problem with this approach.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants